Marine Renewable Energy

Effectively Balancingthe Needs of Developers and

Potential Environmental Impacts

An Australasian Perspective

Glen WrightCollege of Law, Australian National University

The Environmental Interactions of Marine Renewable Energy TechnologiesOrkney, May 2012

My ResearchWhat are the key elements of a suitable regulatory

framework for facilitating the sustainable deployment of marine renewable energy systems?

Environmental Impact Assessment Managing competing uses Permitting/licensing/exploitation Consenting processes Grid connection Feed-in tariffs and incentive mechanisms

Overview

Context

The importance of good regulation

General schema of approaches to EIA

Resource and projects in Australasia

New Zealand: Crest Energy’s tidal project

Australia: toward a framework for marine energy in Victoria

Concluding thoughts

Marine Renewable EnergyLeast developed of the renewable energy technologies

Uncertainty regarding environmental impacts

No ‘winners’ yet: technology and regulatory methods varied

Need to: facilitate the deployment of small-scale prototypes look to the future: plan for potential environmental impacts, human

use conflicts and likely competition over sites ensure balance between sustainability and exploitation

Marine renewables enter an already congested marine environment:

The Importance of Regulation Good regulation can help facilitate the development and

deployment of marine renewable energy: Certainty Sustainability Investor confidence Development of knowledge Equitable use Timescales

The regulatory process is the mechanism by which research into impacts is put into practice

Success of marine renewables “dependent upon government policies to support the development and deployment of these emerging technologies… the sector requires a comprehensive policy framework”

Clean Energy Council

Approaches to Impact Assessment

Precautionary Developer friendly

Precautionary Deploy and monitorThe Middle Way

• Requires high scientific certainty

• Preferred by conservation groups

• But:• disregards the

environmental benefits of renewable energy

• we can never be 100% certain

• Elements of precautionary and deploy and monitor approaches

• SEA and MSP• Adaptive

management• Factors in broader

policy considerations• Allows for some

‘paradoxical harm’• Attempts to strike a

balance

• Deploy devices and conduct ongoing monitoring

• Assumes minimal environmental impact

• Allows for fast deployment

• Perhaps preferred by developers

• Suitable for small-scale and prototypes

Marine Renewable Energy in Australasia

New Zealand Strong wave resource potential at most

South- and West- facing coasts A number of significant tidal energy sites Wave energy prototype deployed, a

number of tidal projects proposed

Australia Excellent wave resource along Western

and Southern coastline Sufficient tidal resources for local

electricity production in many areas Four deployed wave pilot projects,

totalling around 1MW capacity, range of tidal proposals

Impact Assessment in New ZealandCrest Energy’s Tidal Power Project

Crest proposes to establish an array of 200 turbines in the seabed of the Kaipara Harbour; ultimate nameplate capacity of 200 MW

No specific marine renewable energy legislation/processes as yet – approvals made under range of existing legislation

Applied to local council for consents under the Resource Management Act 1991

Openhydro turbineCourtesy of Crest Energy

Consultation

Initial application to

council

Interim decision from

Env. Ct.

Further consultation

Mediation

Final decision

Crest’s Tidal Power ProjectProcess Outline

Kaipara HarbourCourtesy of Crest Energy

Crest Energy’s Tidal Power ProjectEnvironment Court

Main parties: Crest; Council; Maori group

Key issues: marine life fish and fisheries sustainable management navigation coastal planning processes Maori cultural issues

Court acknowledge from the outset that the project: is an “efficient use and development of natural and physical

resources”; and will reduce carbon emissions

Crest was very proactive in engaging stakeholders

Maui’s DolphinCourtesy of Kaitiaki

Crest Energy’s Tidal Power ProjectInterim Decision

Effect of the project on marine fauna and fisheries particularly important

Crest’s research regarding fisheries considered insufficient

Noise monitoring must take place: determine baseline/monitor

Crest discharged duties to Maori group through extensive consultation

Court very much in favour, but Crest’s position precarious

Mediation

Time consuming, but did solve some outstanding issues

Image courtesy of Crest Energy

Crest Energy’s Tidal Power ProjectFinal Decision

Staged deployment: 3, 20, 40, 80 and 200 turbines; three year gap between each addition

Adaptive management: collect baseline data setting objectives monitoring results changing environmental management plan to reflect new knowledge

Effects should be “no more than minor”

Financial viability of project is not incompatible with sustainability considerations

Impact Assessment in New Zealand Insight for industry into best approach to consent process:

Strong, early and continued consultation Baseline monitoring Comprehensive effects statements Plan for long process

A number of points in favour of marine renewables: Some consideration of financial viability Acknowledgement of climate benefits Willingness of Court/cooperative process

Does it strike the balance? Slow process Onus heavily on developer to prove sustainability of technology Costly Quite precautionary approach to deployment = long time until project

is profitable/commercially sustainable Strong opposition to project – process inept at managing this; again,

developer shoulders burden

Impact Assessment in Australia Perhaps the least proactive of all marine renewable energy

countries – less impetus to develop

Ad hoc approach: local government authorities assessing projects on a one-off basis as and when companies approach

Simply applying existing laws to new technology

“The absence of an existing framework for regulating marine energy… means companies working in the sector are required to ‘forge a process’ for approval of their projects.”

Victorian Government

2-3 years for basic consents for test devices

BioWave deviceCourtesy of BioPower Systems

Impact Assessment in AustraliaVictoria

Victoria keen on developing renewables (but, note change of state government)

Inquiry on approval processes for renewables generally and discussion paper on marine renewables specifically

Current process involves the following approvals: Environment Effects Act 1978: fully integrated assessment of social,

economic and environment outcomes Planning and Environment Act 1987: planning schemes and

development controls Coastal Management Act 1995: use of coastal Crown land Heritage Act 1995: permits and consents where heritage sites are to

be disturbed. Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006: Cultural Heritage Management Plan

…and more for tenure!

Victoria’s Marine Energy Discussion PaperCurrent framework not apt to facilitate development

Key principles moving forward: Maximise public benefit Facilitate development of resource Minimise negative impact Attract investment Minimise speculation Shorten timescale for approvals Ensure transparency

Committed to a whole-of government approach

Three proposed options for reform within existing laws: focus on tenure allocation, not environmental impact Assumes that existing frameworks for EIA will remain Onus remains on developer: reform actually increase burden Third option suggests Strategic Environmental Assessment –

a step toward better balance

Port Fairy, site of BioWave prototype deployment, courtesy of David Kleinhart

Concluding ThoughtsAustralasia is an interesting case study: using existing

regulation to attempt a ‘middle way’: will it work?

Neither jurisdiction has tailored requirements for initial pilot phase

Need to consider specific options for marine renewables

Adaptive management and modular deployment can be used to balance competing interests, but must not place too much onus on developer

Strategic Environmental Assessments and Marine Spatial Planning could take some pressure of developers - more work needs to be done to determine best practice approach

Feed-in tariffs and other incentives should be considered to ensure greater impetus for development

No easy answers for regulation – will likely be some time before approach is standardised

Much more research into suitable regulation needed

Thank YouGlen Wright

glen.w.wright@gmail.com